State's delayed challenge to the land grant lacks merit as no substantiating evidence was presented, affirming the integrity of rights established over decades.

ORDER :

Rajesh Rai K, J.

The State has called in question the correctness of the order dated 12.03.2018 in RRT(2)(A)CR.29/09-10 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bangalore North Sub- Division, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, whereby the Special Deputy Commissioner-2 dropped the proceedings based on the reference made by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64/P40 measuring 2 acres situated at Bhoothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.

2. The abridged facts of the case are that, one Eeraiah and five others were granted land in Sy.No.64 totally measuring 12 acres situated at Bhoothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and among them, the said Eeraiah had granted 2 acres of land vide grant order No.186/49-50 dated 28.04.1950. Subsequently, the said Eeraiah was in possession and enjoyment of said land. He alienated the said land in favour of one Doddaramaiah vide Sale Deed dated 09.05.1968 in respect of the said property. Based on the said registered Sale Deed, the said Doddaramaiah in-turn sold the said land to respondent No.1 herein vide Sale Deed dated 17.09.1985. Ever since then, respondent No.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Subsequently, the revenue entries were mutated in her name as per MR:08/85-86.

3. Things stood thus, the Tahsildar of Anekal made a reference before the Special Deputy Commissioner- 2/respondent No.2 in respect of genuineness of grant made in favour of original grantee-Eeraiah in the year 1950. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Commissioner-2, suo moto registered the said reference in RRT(2)(A)CR.29/09-10 and conducted a detailed enquiry. In the said enquiry, the Special Deputy Commissioner-2 observed that as per the original grant records and the subsequent revenue entries, Eeraiah, the original grantee was granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.64/P40 situated at Bhoothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and subsequently, Eeraiah sold the said property to one Doddaramaiah and in-turn Doddaramaiah sold the said property to respondent No.1. Further, all the revenue entries i.e., RTC, mutation and saguvali chit were entered in the name of respondent No.1 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Commissioner-2 ordered to remove the entries made by the Tahsildar in the RTC that the said land is of Government land and directed to enter the name of respondent No.1 in RTC. The said order has been challenged by the State in this Writ Petition.

4. I have heard the learned HCGP Sri Neelakantappa K. Pujar for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri Uday K.S., for respondent No.1.

5. It is the primary contention of the learned HCGP that the subject land is a gomala/forest land and grant made in favour of original allottee-Eeraiah itself is not sustainable, since it is not as per law. Hence, the Sale Deeds executed by the original grantee-Eeraiah to Doddaramaiah and in-turn Doddaramaiah to respondent No.1 are not sustainable under law. He also contends that the Tahsildar after due enquiry, removed the name of respondent No.1 from RTC and entered the name of the Government. The Special Deputy Commissioner-2, without properly appreciating the said aspect, passed the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to allow the Writ Petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 by supporting the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has meticulously examined all the documents including the original grant which was made in the year 1950, Sale Deeds, mutation, RTC and saguvali chit issued in favour of respondent No.1. A